Human Gene Patenting: Yes, Companies Can Own Your DNA

Human Gene Patenting: Yes, Companies Can Own Your DNA

The idea of patenting a gene seems strange, and it’s a practice that’s made weirder by virtue of the fact that the genes of living humans can also be patented. How is this possible? And what are the potential pitfalls? Here’s what you need to know about the current state of human gene patents — and why the current laws need to be reconsidered.

The Human Gene Patent

Patents are typically granted for something that’s tangible, like a mechanical device. It’s done to protect inventors and companies from being ripped-off by their competitors; they’re the ones who put the time and work into developing the technology, so they should be protected from those looking to copy their ideas. It’s a process that works, and it makes sense.

Recently, the system has been expanded to keep pace with developments in technology, including advances that have been brought about by the biotech revolution. Subsequently, patents have been granted for less tangible things — including “inventions” that are connected to fragments of genetic code.

Specifically, a gene patent can be granted for a claim on a nucleic acid, or for a method of diagnosing a genetic condition. Claims can be made over a DNA or RNA sequence, or a method of identifying the existence of a DNA or RNA sequence in an individual. This can include both coding and non-coding DNA. So, for example, a patent can be taken out on the gene sequence responsible for a predisposition to Alzheimer’s.

Product and process claims tend to fall within four broad categories, namely isolated DNA or RNA molecules, diagnostic kit tests, methods of diagnosis through genetic testing, and gene chips and microarrays. Consequently, by patenting human genes that can be associated with these potential products, companies stand to make a lot of money — hence the intense demand for human gene patent claims.

The Mad Rush to Patent

And indeed, once the practice of gene sequencing began in the late 1990s, there was a mad rush to patent human genes. As far back as 2005, a study showed that over 4,000 genes — about 10-20% of the human genome — were claimed in some way by U.S. patents (it’s worth noting that a more recent study has taken exception to this claim). A similar number of patent claims appeared in both Canada and Europe. The wild west era of human gene patenting had begun.

The flurry of human gene patenting sparked a furious debate in legal, political, health, and philosophical circles. Since the practice began, a flurry of questions have been raised in regards to the sensibility of human gene patenting, and whether or not it’s in the public’s best interest.

A common argument was that the human genome — and all its inner workings — was part of the commons, and that no one should be able to own or patent it.

This reminds me of when a group of students patented computer code to: 1- set a bit of data to zero, 2- set a bit of data to one, 3- flip a bit of data from zero to one or from one to zero.

As these three code segments underlie every computer program ever written or that ever could be written, they are theoretically owed a colossal fortune by every software company and computer programmer in the world, but they have never attempted to collect the money as they did it to highlight the possibility of gross abuse of the copyright system.

Which brings me to wonder: how do these companies intend to collect royalties for the use of their intellectual property because every animal and plant on Earth is using it all the time, and its only one of the animals, humans, that have any money, or any need for money.

I recall a fashion designer named Montana wanting to impose restrictions upon the state of Montana for using his name. I can’t recall if this was some urban legend or if it was peacefully resolved when a bunch of Montanans pulled out their shotguns, hogtied him to the back of their pickup truck and dragged his frou frou arse around the ranch a few times.

I expect many breast cancer survivors will do the same to a few people if they prevent women from getting proper care.